In United States v. Fisk, the Supreme Court held that a federal statute prohibiting the sale of lottery tickets was constitutional and applied to state-authorized lotteries. The defendant in this case had been convicted for selling lottery tickets under an act passed by the legislature of New York authorizing such sales. He argued that Congress did not have authority to pass a law regulating intrastate commerce, but the court disagreed and found his conviction valid. The court reasoned that although states may regulate their own internal affairs, they cannot do so if it conflicts with laws enacted by Congress pursuant to its power over interstate commerce or other enumerated powers granted in Article I of the Constitution. In this case, since Congress had acted within its power when passing legislation concerning lotteries, it was able to override any conflicting state laws on this matter and thus render them invalid.

In United States v. Fisk, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal statute that authorized the seizure of goods imported in violation of customs laws could be applied to goods seized before Congress passed the law. The majority opinion held that it could not, as such an application would violate due process and constitute an ex post facto law. Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there was no constitutional prohibition against applying statutes retroactively; secondly, he argued that even if there were such a prohibition, this particular statute did not apply retroactively because its purpose was merely to provide for more efficient enforcement of existing laws rather than creating new ones or changing their meaning. He concluded by noting his belief that Congress had intended for the statute to have retrospective effect and thus should be enforced accordingly.